Elections this year in Boulder, Colorado and across the nation are incredibly important. We say that every year. But this year we have candidates and issues who we need to protect democracy and strengthen our communities. I hope you enjoy reading my guide and voting this November.

For more than five years, I’ve written a voter guide for every election in Boulder. I want to start with a thank you to local journalists Shay Castle (Boulder Beat), news and opinion writers at the Boulder Daily Camera, Boulder Reporting Lab, and the Boulder Weekly. Without their dedication and terrific reporting, guides like this wouldn’t be possible. I’ve also linked to great reporting from The Denver Post, Colorado Sun, Colorado Newsline, Colorado Chalkbeat and other outlets. Consider subscribing!

You can subscribe to Shay Castle’s Patreon to get weekly local news, or you can subscribe to the Boulder Daily Camera and Boulder Weekly which support a number of local journalists and editorials.

November 8th, 2022 General Election in Boulder, Colorado

1. Federal Offices
   • United States Senator – Michael Bennet (D)
   • Representative to the 118th United States Congress – District 2 – Joe Neguse (D)
2. State Offices
   • Governor/Lieutenant Governor – Jared Polis (D)
   • Secretary of State – Jena Griswold (D)
   • State Treasurer – Dave Young (D)
   • Attorney General – Phil Weiser (D)
   • State Board of Education Member — At Large – Kathy Plomer (D)
   • State Representative – District 10 – Junie Joseph (D)
   • State Representative – District 49 – Judy Amabile (D)
   • Regional Transportation District Director – District O – Lynn Guissinger (D)
3. County Offices
   • County Commissioner – District 3 – Ashley Stolzmann (D)
   • County Clerk and Recorder – Molly Fitzpatrick (D)
   • County Treasurer – Paul Weissmann (D)
   • County Assessor – Cynthia Braddock (D)
   • County Surveyor – Lee Stadele (D)
   • County Coroner – Emma R. Hall (D)
4. Judicial Retention Questions
5. State Ballot Measures
   • Amendment D – YES / FOR
   • Amendment E – YES / FOR
   • Amendment F – YES / FOR
   • Proposition FF – YES / FOR
   • Proposition GG – YES / FOR
   • Proposition 121 – NO/AGAINST
   • Proposition 122 – YES / FOR
   • Proposition 123 – YES / FOR
   • Proposition 124 – NO/AGAINST
   • Proposition 125 – YES / FOR
   • Proposition 126 – YES / FOR
6. County Ballot Measures
   • Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A – YES / FOR
   • Boulder County Ballot Issue 1B – YES / FOR
   • Boulder County Ballot Issue 1C – YES / FOR
7. Local Ballot Measures
   • City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2A / 2B – YES / FOR
   • City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C – YES / FOR
   • City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D – YES / FOR
   • City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2E – YES / FOR
   • City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2F – NO/AGAINST
   • Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Ballot Issue 5A – YES / FOR
   • Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C – YES / FOR

Federal Offices

United States Senator – Michael Bennet (Democratic)

I am voting for Michael Bennet. Senator Bennet has been a strong supporter of key parts of the Democratic platform like environmental protections, the child tax credit, and immigration reform. Without him and a Democratic advantage in the Senate, many of President Biden’s major accomplishments wouldn’t be possible.

While I often want to see Senator Bennet take more progressive positions, he is and will continue to be an important part to keep and expand Democratic majority in the Senate.

Additional Reading

Michael Bennet hopes to become Colorado’s longest-serving senator in decades. Who is he? – CPR News

Representative to the 118th United States Congress – District 2 – Joe Neguse (Democratic)

I am voting for Joe Neguse. Congressman Neguse has been an outstanding champion for Boulder County and Congressional District 2. I’ve appreciated both his leadership and accessibility in the community. I have included some links below to highlight some of the important work and community engagement he’s been doing in the district.

Additional Reading

Colorado 2nd Congressional District: Rep. Joe Neguse, Marshall Dawson – CPR News

Joe Neguse Didn’t Come to Congress to Fight Wildfires. Climate Change Had Other Plans – Time

Rep. Joe Neguse talks firefighter pay, federal funding during Summit County visit – Summit Daily

From brush clearing to thorny issues, Rep. Joe Neguse tries a new twist on the town hall – CPR News

State Offices

Governor/Lieutenant Governor – Jared Polis / Dianne Primavera (Democratic)

I am voting for Jared Polis / Dianne Primavera. In general, I think the Polis administration and legislature has some great accomplishments — funding transportation in the state, reforming policing, passing the reproductive health equity act, universal preschool, and helping Colorado families and businesses through the pandemic. There are likely many more accomplishments I could list.

Polis’ Republican opponent simply has policy priorities that I don’t agree with, and in my opinion an incoherent campaign not worthy of consideration.

I’ll take the opportunity to say that in a second term, and hopefully with support of the legislature, I’d like to see even more progress on key issues for the state. The top on my list are more funding for housing and statewide zoning reforms, improving decarbonizing and improve public transportation, strengthen and codify abortion protections, further protections for LGBTQ rights and overturning Colorado’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Additional Reading

Gov. Jared Polis wants a second term as Colorado’s governor: What you need to know – CPR News

School Officials to GOP Candidate: Stop Spreading Bogus Claim Students ‘Identify as Cats’ – The Daily Beast

How the conservative parents’ rights movement — fueled by LGBTQ backlash — is shaping Heidi Ganahl’s campaign – CPR News

Heidi Ganahl pressed on election denial, tax cut plan during governor’s forum – Denver Post

Guest Opinion: Jared Polis: The secret is out, Colorado is an amazing place to live – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Heidi Ganahl: Let’s make Colorado affordable and safe again – Daily Camera

Secretary of State – Jena Griswold (Democratic)

I am voting for Jena Griswold. Secretary Griswold has been a progressive leader in the Secretary of State at a time when our democratic system has been under the most attack. Some criticism of Jena has been that she is too political — yet upholding our democracy itself has in fact become political.

Republicans have attacked voting itself and access to the ballot across the country. Here in Colorado, we’re trying to make it easier and simpler for everyone to vote. While it seems that Secretary Griswold’s opponent is well-qualified and potentially worthy of the job, the Republican Party is not. I’m very proud to support Jena Griswold for re-election.

Additional Reading

Colorado Secretary of State: Democrat Jena Griswold – CPR News

Erroneous mailers and political tone sticking points in secretary of state debate – CPR News

One Colorado Race Will Be About Voters’ Faith in Elections. It’s Not Looking Good. -Politico

Guest opinion: Jena Griswold: Let’s make Colorado number one for voter turnout – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Pam Anderson: Non-partisan professionalism can restore trust in our elections – Daily Camera

State Treasurer – Dave Young (Democratic)

I am voting for Dave Young. Treasurer Young has done a solid job during the pandemic and greatly aligns with my values. A few helpful examples from this Durango Herald article:

“Young… said he’d like to see Colorado’s tax policy changed because he feels TABOR has hampered the state’s ability to fund schools, health care and infrastructure.”

“This year, Democrats in the legislature, with the backing of Young and Gov. Jared Polis, temporarily changed the state’s TABOR refund mechanism to make it a flat rate instead of tying it to income and giving the biggest refunds to the highest earners. Individual filers got a $750 refund while joint filers received a $1,500 refund.”

“I think the move to a flat system was actually more beneficial to a larger number of people here in the state of Colorado,” Young said.

Additional Reading

About Treasurer Dave Young – CO Department of Treasury

Colorado State Treasurer: Dave Young, Lang Sias – CPR News

Here’s where Colorado treasurer candidates Dave Young and Lang Sias stand on the issues – Colorado Sun

Attorney General – Phil Weiser (Democratic)

I am voting for Phil Weiser. Attorney General Weiser has fought to protect consumer privacy, police reform, and is committed to protecting abortion access and defending gun safety laws. I strongly support his re-election.

Additional Reading

Crime a top issue in the 2022 attorney general’s race – Denver Post

Endorsement: We need Phil Weiser to protect pregnant women and Colorado doctors

ENDORSEMENT: Weiser makes a winning case for his 2nd term; Kellner raises objections for the wrong job – Aurora Sentinel

Colorado’s new Attorney General, Phil Weiser ’94, seeks to innovate – NYU Law

State Board of Education Member — At Large – Kathy Plomer (Democratic)

I am voting for Kathy Plomer. Colorado’s statewide school board is largely responsible for setting education policy, which has recently included some disturbing developments. From Colorado Chalkbeat, “A Republican State Board of Education member who believes socialism poses grave dangers at home and abroad has put his stamp on how Colorado students will learn about the Holocaust.”

From another Colorado Chalkbeat article earlier in the year: “On the State Board of Education, Democrats say they have a track record of positive change and will focus on student needs rather than ideology. Republicans say they’ll center parents’ rights and school choice, focus on core academic skills, and block efforts to promote a more inclusive approach to teaching race, gender, and sexuality.”

Locally, the Boulder Valley School District Board of Education worked closely with advocates from Out Boulder and the Boulder LGBTQ community on a recent resolution codifying their commitment to LGBTQ and BIPOC representation in curriculum: “The BVSD Board of Education reaffirms its commitment to policies that support and represent the diverse people and families in our communities and opposes any action by the Colorado State Board of Education to remove or limit the representation of LGBTQ and BIPOC people from the social studies curriculum and standards.”

State school board is incredibly important for our school curricula and we need more socially liberal representation. Please vote for Kathy Plomer.

Additional Reading

Colorado State Board of Education At-large candidate Q&A – Denver Post

Colorado State Board of Education: Who’s running and why it has two new seats – CPR News

ENDORSEMENT: Voters must pay heed to state school board races sneaking extremism into the classroom — elect McClellan, Plomer – Aurora Sentinel

State Representative – District 10 – Junie Joseph (Democratic)

I am voting for Junie Joseph. I first met Junie Joseph when she moved to town in 2018. I was amazed and impressed when she wanted to run for city council the next year. We had just launched Boulder Progressives and were proud to support her candidacy. On the city council, Joseph has aligned members who are pro-housing and making Boulder welcoming to all people.

I look forward to having Rep Joseph represent the same values in the state legislature.
Full disclosure: I was a member of the HD10 Democratic vacancy committee who participated in the process to select our next state rep.

Additional Reading

Colorado House of Representatives District 10 – Ballotpedia

Colorado State House District 10 candidate Q&A – Denver Post

Junie Joseph For House District 10

Junie Joseph’s 2022 priorities on Boulder City Council – Boulder Beat

[Bill DeOreo] – House District 10 candidate sues Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s Office – Daily Camera

Eric Budd: Election: MAGA Republicans attack democracy in Boulder – Daily Camera

State Representative – District 49 – Judy Amabile (Democratic)

I am voting for Judy Amabile. Representative Amabile previously House District 13 before the 2021 redistricting. If you thought there couldn’t be a clearer race than HD 10 Junie vs. Bill, here is an easier one. Rep Amabile has been a fantastic leader in Boulder.

A few of Rep Amabile’s accomplishments and work: strengthening our mental health infrastructure and access to mental health services, new laws to address gun violence, and protecting people who are affected by wildfires, among other accomplishments. I strongly support Judy Amabile to continue representing Boulder in the state legislature.

Additional Reading

Colorado House of Representatives District 49 – Ballotpedia

Judy Amabile For House District 49

Colorado State House District 49 candidate Q&A – Denver Post

Regional Transportation District Director – District O – Lynn Guissinger

I am voting for Lynn Guissinger. Director Guissinger has done a great job representing Boulder in the Regional Transportation District during a really difficult period in the pandemic. Amid service cuts, difficulty hiring drivers, and shifting commute patterns with remote work, RTD is certainly experiencing a lot of change. She has my strong support.

Additional Reading

RTD Board of Directors elections 2022, District O: Lynn Guissinger, Richard O’Keefe – CPR News

RTD Director District O candidate Q&A – Denver Post

County Offices

County Commissioner – District 3 – Ashley Stolzmann (Democratic)

I am voting for Ashley Stolzmann. The current mayor of Louisville Colorado will help bring a progressive voice to the Boulder County Commissioners. I appreciated this interview that Ashley gave during the Democratic Primary in June to Boulder Beat:

“Housing, homelessness, transportation, gun violence prevention — these issues are not city-by-city issues.” The recent gun control push, “working together made it much easier.” Anything housing and human services, “the county has the funding, they have the resources” as the state arm of that locally. “The commissioners could do a better job communicating what we’re doing and what we’re spending money on.”

Additional Reading

Boulder County Commissioner District 3: Ashley Stolzmann

County Clerk and Recorder – Molly Fitzpatrick (Democratic)

I am voting for Molly Fitzpatrick, who is running unopposed.

County Treasurer – Paul Weissmann (Democratic)

I am voting for Paul Weissmann, who is running unopposed.

County Assessor – Cynthia Braddock (Democratic)

I am voting for Cynthia Braddock, who is running unopposed.

County Surveyor – Lee Stadele (Democratic)

I am voting for Lee Stadele, who is running unopposed.

County Coroner – Emma R. Hall (Democratic)

I am voting for Emma R. Hall, who is running unopposed.

Judicial Retention Questions

Here’s a link to the Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluations. Overall I find the process of researching judges frustrating because the available resources lack the needed information to make decisions on retention. Please send me any additional resources or thoughts you have to @ericmbudd on Twitter.

State Ballot Measures

Amendment D (CONSTITUTIONAL) – YES / FOR

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning judges of the newly created twenty-third judicial district, and, in connection therewith, directing the governor to designate judges from the eighteenth judicial district to serve the remainder of their terms in the twenty-third judicial district and requiring a judge so designated to establish residency within the twenty-third judicial district?

YES / FOR. Amendment D is a housekeeping measure to allow for the transition of judges from the eighteenth judicial district to the twenty-third judicial district. The measure is not related to redistricting completed in 2021, but rather to a one-time creation of a new district.

Additional Reading

Colorado Amendment D, Designate Judges to Twenty-Third Judicial District Measure (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Amendment D – State of Colorado

Amendment D: Colorado’s governor would be empowered to reassign judges to newly created judicial district – Colorado Sun

Amendment E (CONSTITUTIONAL) – YES / FOR

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the extension of the property tax exemption for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans to the surviving spouse of a United States armed forces service member who died in the line of duty or veteran whose death resulted from a service-related injury or disease?

YES / FOR. Colorado has an existing property tax exemption program implemented by the state legislature and administered by the counties. Per the Boulder County Clerk’s page, “For those who qualify, 50 percent of the first $200,000 in actual value of their primary residence is exempted, for a maximum exemption amount of $100,000 in actual value. The State of Colorado pays the property taxes on the exempted value.”

While the details and amounts of the program are determined by state law and can be altered by the legislature, the determination of who may qualify for such exemptions is in the Colorado constitution, which is why this measure requires a constitutional change. Colorado requires a 55 percent supermajority to approve a constitutional amendment.

While property tax exemptions do have the possibility to create bad incentives, concentrate wealth, and underfund state governments (witness Prop 13 in California), the policy here would serve to protect families whose death was related to service to our country. I think this exemption makes sense and I am voting yes.

Additional Reading

Colorado Amendment E, Homestead Exemption to Surviving Spouses of U.S. Armed Forces Members and Veterans Measure (2022)

Colorado Blue Book – Amendment E – State of Colorado

Amendment E: Extend homestead exemption to Gold Star spouses, explained – CPR News

Amendment E: Colorado’s homestead property tax exemption would be extended to Gold Star spouses – Colorado Sun

Amendment F (CONSTITUTIONAL) – YES / FOR

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the conduct of charitable gaming activities, and, in connection therewith, allowing managers and operators to be paid and repealing the required period of a charitable organization’s continuous existence before obtaining a charitable gaming license?

YES / FOR. Amendment F is very similar to a measure on Colorado’s 2020 ballot, Amendment C. Here is my take on that measure, which still holds:

The amendment will loosen some regulations on charitable fundraisers. Most of the specific changes would reduce the time requirement from five years to three years, and set up requirements for paid staff. Overall this is a small change at the state level but would have a more significant economic impact for local communities using the updated regulations.

Additional Reading

Colorado Amendment F, Charitable Gaming Measure (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Amendment F – State of Colorado

Amendment F: Should Colorado update a law written in 1958 governing charitable bingo and raffles? – Colorado Sun

Amendment F: Changes to charitable gaming operations, explained – CPR News

Proposition FF (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $100,727,820 ANNUALLY BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES THAT, TO SUPPORT HEALTHY MEALS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS, INCREASES STATE TAXABLE INCOME ONLY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FEDERAL TAXABLE INCOME OF $300,000 OR MORE BY LIMITING ITEMIZED OR STANDARD STATE INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS TO $12,000 FOR SINGLE TAX RETURN FILERS AND $16,000 FOR JOINT TAX RETURN FILERS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING THE HEALTHY SCHOOL MEALS FOR ALL PROGRAM TO PROVIDE FREE SCHOOL MEALS TO STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; PROVIDING GRANTS FOR PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS TO PURCHASE COLORADO GROWN, RAISED, OR PROCESSED PRODUCTS, TO INCREASE WAGES OR PROVIDE STIPENDS FOR EMPLOYEES WHO PREPARE AND SERVE SCHOOL MEALS, AND TO CREATE PARENT AND STUDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE ADVICE TO ENSURE SCHOOL MEALS ARE HEALTHY AND APPEALING TO ALL STUDENTS; AND CREATING A PROGRAM TO ASSIST IN PROMOTING COLORADO FOOD PRODUCTS AND PREPARING SCHOOL MEALS USING BASIC NUTRITIOUS INGREDIENTS WITH MINIMAL RELIANCE ON PROCESSED PRODUCTS?

YES / FOR. Providing healthy school meals by taxing high-income earners is easily the most progressive measure on Colorado’s 2022 ballot. Let’s make this happen!

The Colorado Blue Book has a great illustration on how the program would directly benefit students and families:

Here’s an article from the Boulder Daily Camera in March talking about the importance of free lunch programs:

Boulder Valley Food Services Director Stephen Menyhart called the federal support that allowed all students to eat school lunch for free, no paperwork required, during the pandemic a “great equalizer.”

… he noted the free lunch income requirements don’t take into account local housing costs. To qualify, a family of four can’t make more than $50,000 a year.”

In a place like Boulder, we often have significant divides between wealthier and poorer families amplified by high housing costs. Establishing a universal program would make a big difference.

Here’s an example from the Colorado Blue Book on how the progressive taxation portion of the measure will work:

The Boulder Valley School District Board of Education has endorsed the measure, saying Proposition FF is “an important benefit to Colorado’s families and kids who face food shortages and hunger.” Tell everyone you know to vote Yes.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition FF, Reduce Income Tax Deduction Amounts to Fund School Meals Program Measure (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition FF – State of Colorado

Colorado voters asked to fund school lunches with tax hike on high incomes – Colorado Newsline

Proposition FF: Healthy meals for all public school students, explained – CPR News

Proposition FF: Slashing tax breaks for the wealthy would fund program giving all Colorado public school students free meals – Colorado Sun

Proposition GG (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring that the ballot title and fiscal summary for any ballot initiative that increases or decreases state income tax rates include a table showing the average tax change for tax filers in different income categories?

YES / FOR. Per Ballotpedia for Proposition GG, “This measure would require ballot titles and fiscal impact summaries for initiatives that increase or decrease the individual income tax rate to include a table showing the potential tax changes for those in different income categories under the proposed initiative. Changes would be expressed by a dollar amount and a plus sign (+) if taxes owed would be increased or a negative sign (-) if the taxes owed would be decreased.”

Proposition GG is largely a response to a strategy from conservative / Republican groups to issues like Proposition 121 in 2022 and Proposition 116 in 2020 which systematically ask voters to approve state income tax cuts.

Prop 121 this year reads: “Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%?”

The current ballot structure provides little information about how income taxes would affect the state budget and who would be likely to receive significant cuts in taxes. Prop 116 passed in 2020 with 57.9% voting in favor.

Continued chipping away at the state’s income tax rate, and that the income tax savings will largely go to people with larger incomes, make additional information on the effects of these measures critically important. Please vote Yes.

Additional Reading

Proposition GG: Information on Colorado income tax changes would be more prominently displayed – Colorado Sun

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition GG – State of Colorado

Proposition GG: Giving voters more information about proposed tax changes – CPR News

Proposition 121 (STATUTORY) – NO / AGAINST

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes reducing the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%?

NO / AGAINST. Prop 121 is another continuation of conservative / Republican-aligned groups continuing to chip away at the state income tax, with the savings largely going to wealthier residents.

Per Chase Woodruff in Colorado Newsline on Prop 121: “If the initiative passes, a tax filer who earns $60,000 a year would owe about $63 less in taxes in 2023, according to a state fiscal analysis. Nearly half of the benefits of the rate reduction — an estimated $188 million — would go to Coloradans earning more than $1 million a year, who would see an average tax cut of $6,647.”

Another income tax cut would also directly impact 2022’s Prop 123 which would dedicate a small amount of income tax surplus to fund affordable housing in Colorado.

Here’s a quote from Scott Wasserman in CPR on Prop 121: “When we hit the first recession, we’ll be taking in less money,” said Scott Wasserman, president of the progressive Bell Policy Center, in an earlier interview. “This will impact K-12 education, health and human services, corrections, higher education, public safety, you name it.”

I urge you to vote no.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 121, State Income Tax Rate Reduction Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 121 – State of Colorado

Proposition 121: Coloradans will decide whether to cut the state income tax rate — again – Colorado Sun

Proposition 121: Should Colorado cut its income tax rate again? – Denver Business Journal

Colorado Proposition 121: State Income Tax Rate Reduction Initiative – Daily Camera

Proposition 122 (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning legal regulated access to natural medicine for persons 21 years of age or older, and, in connection therewith, defining natural medicine as certain plants or fungi that affect a person’s mental health and are controlled substances under state law; establishing a natural medicine regulated access program for supervised care, and requiring the department of regulatory agencies to implement the program and comprehensively regulate natural medicine to protect public health and safety; creating an advisory board to advise the department as to the implementation of the program; granting a local government limited authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of providing natural medicine services; allowing limited personal possession, use, and uncompensated sharing of natural medicine; providing specified protections under state law, including criminal and civil immunity, for authorized providers and users of natural medicine; and, in limited circumstances, allowing the retroactive removal and reduction of criminal penalties related to the possession, use, and sale of natural medicine?

YES / FOR. I think Proposition 122 will be the most difficult item for me on this year’s ballot. In some ways, a simple decriminalization measure would be easier to support and write about. While I’m personally voting Yes, it’s a fairly soft yes that does leave me with some unanswered questions.

What I think this measure gets right: the aspects of decriminalization and details on what are permissible and impermissible use of the substances in general.

What I’m not sure about with this measure: what are the details of the substances themselves, how they might be used medically, or how they might be made available to the general public. 

From the Colorado Blue Book:

Arguments Against Proposition 122

“There are currently no approved therapies that use psychedelic mushrooms or other plant-based psychedelic substances, and the effects of them can vary widely from person to person, depending on the dose, frequency of use, and type of substance. Breakthrough Therapy designation does not mean that the use of psychedelic mushrooms is safe or recommended.

Further, DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline have not received a similar designation, and, specifically, ibogaine may cause life-threatening heart conditions. Proposing a regulatory framework for the use of these substances suggests that they offer legitimate treatment before they have received federal approval, potentially putting people’s health and public safety at risk.”

Is it possible that the passage of Prop 122 might further research and development of these areas? Perhaps. Is it also possible that we may find limited benefits and some negative externalities of passing Prop 122? Also possible.

In general, I feel that the measure goes in the right direction, but may need additional action from the legislature to tighten up the policy. Here are a few more sources to read that I think may be useful:

Colorado was the first state to legalize cannabis.

A decade after voters made Colorado the first government in the world to regulate, tax and sell cannabis, a look back at how it happened and what’s next.

More from Vicente Sederberg:

Colorado Prop 122: A Transformative Measure Grounded in Equity and Healing

Colorado Prop 122’s Historic Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) Requirements

The Natural Medicine Health Act of 2022: A Measure to Access Psychedelic Medicine in Colorado

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 122, Decriminalization and Regulated Access Program for Certain Psychedelic Plants and Fungi Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 122 – State of Colorado

Native Coalition Against Prop 122

Untangling Viewpoints: Getting to Yes on the Natural Medicine Health Act – chacruna – Institute for Psychedelic Plant Medicines

What is Colorado Proposition 122: Legalizing psilocybin and psilocin? – Denver Post

Proposition 123 (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning statewide funding for additional affordable housing, and, in connection therewith, dedicating state revenues collected from an existing tax of one-tenth of one percent on federal taxable income of every individual, estate, trust, and corporation, as defined in law, for affordable housing and exempting the dedicated revenues from the constitutional limitation on state fiscal year spending; allocating 60% of the dedicated revenues to affordable housing financing programs that will reduce rents, purchase land for affordable housing development, and build assets for renters; allocating 40% of the dedicated revenues to programs that support affordable home ownership, serve persons experiencing homelessness, and support local planning capacity; requiring local governments that seek additional affordable housing funding to expedite development approvals for affordable housing projects and commit to increasing the number of affordable housing units by 3% annually; and specifying that the dedicated revenues shall not supplant existing appropriations for affordable housing programs?

YES / FOR. “Good luck trying to find an affordable home in Colorado,” the report’s executive summary says, “be it for rent or for sale, they simply do not exist,” as reported on Prop 123 in Colorado Politics. 

Housing costs in Colorado and the Front Range have continued to get more unaffordable nearly every year over the past decade, with very little assistance from the state. Prop 123 would provide a good start on affordable housing funding. We should absolutely pass the measure and continue to find ways to do more. I believe that Colorado’s unaffordability is a serious risk to our economy and way of life.

There are a few caveats however:

1. Funding will exist if we have a budget surplus, which is not guaranteed. In the case that we do not have a budget surplus, it appears that the state legislature would need to take action to prevent cuts from other parts of the budget.
2. The funding itself will be for “housing programs administered by the state Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA).” This means that we still rely on local governments to use the money effectively. Many of these local governments, including Boulder, highly restrict what housing can be built, and often have local policies that drastically raise the cost of housing or reduce the amount of total housing that can be built. Prop 123 will increase some incentives to change those policies, but local governments are still a huge barrier to housing affordability. Currently the state has no mechanism to force changes in local policy.

Here is a useful table from the Colorado Blue Book outlining how these funds will be used. Please vote Yes to support Prop 123.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 123, Dedicate State Income Tax Revenue to Fund Housing Projects Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 123 – State of Colorado

Coloradans will vote on whether to increase affordable housing funding this fall. The initiative is ‘urgently needed,’ but its odds are hard to predict – CPR News

State budget writers fear consequences of Colorado voters approving affordable housing ballot measure – Colorado Sun

Editorial: Affordable housing solution must begin somewhere, ‘yes’ on Prop 123 – Daily Camera

Proposition 124 (STATUTORY) – NO / AGAINST

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning increasing the number of retail liquor store licenses in which a person may hold an interest, and, in connection therewith, phasing in the increase by allowing up to 8 licenses by December 31, 2026, up to 13 licenses by December 31, 2031, up to 20 licenses by December 31, 2036, and an unlimited number of licenses on or after January 1, 2037?

NO / AGAINST. Proposition 124 is related to alcohol regulation and is one of three related measures on the November ballot, and is probably the most consequential for the industry. 

The issue of alcohol licensing limitations is not a new one. From Colorado Politics in 2017, on recent the previous year’s action: “The passage of last year’s bill, Senate Bill 197, headed off as many as five proposed ballot measures to allow some combination of beer, wine and liquor sales in grocery and other stores, which the owners of smaller liquor stores worried would have led to the demise of mom-and-pop stores, particularly in rural Colorado.”

The Colorado Blue Book has a helpful graphic comparing current with the Prop 124 proposal:

I think voters need to weigh any potential benefits of passing Prop 124 with the costs. The current law was drafted as a compromise of sorts  — allowing some protection of local and smaller businesses. While the new proposal would eventually remove such limits, and likely drive more intense competition from larger-scale liquor retailers.

I do not find the pro arguments compelling enough. Particularly since promoting competition to drive down the price of alcohol is likely not in the best interest of our communities and health more generally. I am voting no.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 124, Retail Liquor Store Licenses Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 124 – State of Colorado

Proposition 124: Colorado voters will decide whether retail liquor stores should be able to open more locations – Colorado Sun

Why Locally Owned Liquor Stores Are Worried About 3 Upcoming Ballot Measures – 5280 Magazine

Zornio: Split the ticket on alcohol sale and delivery in Propositions 124, 125 and 126 – Colorado Sun

2017 – New Grocery Store Liquor Licensing Laws in Colorado – JBP Legal

2017 – Rival groups of liquor retailers kick up dust in legislative fight over spirit licenses – Colorado Politics

Proposition 125 (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the expansion of retail sale of alcohol beverages, and, in connection therewith, establishing a new fermented malt beverage and wine retailer license for off-site consumption to allow grocery stores, convenience stores, and other business establishments licensed to sell fermented malt beverages, such as beer, for off-site consumption to also sell wine; automatically converting such a fermented malt beverage retailer license to the new license; and allowing fermented malt beverage and wine retailer licensees to conduct tastings if approved by the local licensing authority?

YES / FOR. Prop 125 concerns alcohol regulation in Colorado, similarly to Prop 124. Both issues concern the balance of convenience with protection of small business. I made the case against Prop 124 as changing that balance while not providing significant benefit to the consumer. I think Prop 125 makes more sense.

I can’t think of decent reasons not to allow both sales of beer and wine, or regulating tastings at the same location other than to protect existing markets from competition. I don’t think these particular regulations are worth keeping.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 125, Wine Sales in Grocery and Convenience Stores Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 125 – State of Colorado

Proposition 125: Coloradans will decide whether grocery stores should be allowed to sell wine starting next year – Colorado Sun

Proposition 126 (STATUTORY) – YES / FOR

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning authorization for the third-party delivery of alcohol beverages, and, in connection therewith, allowing retail establishments licensed to sell alcohol beverages for on-site or off-site consumption to deliver all types of alcohol beverages to a person twenty-one years of age or older through a third-party delivery service that obtains a delivery service permit; prohibiting the delivery of alcohol beverages to a person who is under 21 years of age, is intoxicated, or fails to provide proof of identification; removing the limit on the percentage of gross sales revenues a licensee may receive from alcohol beverage deliveries; and allowing a technology services company, without obtaining a third-party delivery service permit, to provide software or a digital network application that connects consumers and licensed retailers for the delivery of alcohol beverages?

YES / FOR. Prop 126 is another area of regulation that will affect the sale of alcohol and related businesses. According to the Colorado Blue Book, “alcohol takeout and delivery by bars and restaurants is scheduled to repeal in July 2025.” Prop 126 would continue current policy and remove other related regulations.

Again, we have a question of what is the proper balance of alcohol regulation and protectionism. I’ve personally found alcohol takeout and delivery service to be fairly transformative, where I find the often car-centric tradition of driving to get alcohol to contribute negatively to our communities.

While we might expect some long-term change in the industry after Prop 126 is made permanent, I think this is an area of regulation that needs to change. I’m voting yes.

Additional Reading

Colorado Proposition 126, Alcohol Delivery Service Initiative (2022) – Ballotpedia

Colorado Blue Book – Proposition 126 – State of Colorado

Proposition 126: Should Colorado restaurants be allowed to sell to-go cocktails forever? – Colorado Sun

County Ballot Measures

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A – YES / FOR

COUNTYWIDE WILDFIRE MITIGATION SALES AND USE TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE

SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $11 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2023) BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.10% FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING WILDFIRE MITIGATION EFFORTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: STRATEGIC FOREST AND GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT PROJECTS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE, PROTECT WATER SUPPLIES, AND FOSTER RESILIENT ECOSYSTEMS; COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND PROGRAMS TO HELP RESIDENTS PREPARE FOR WILDFIRES, CREATE DEFENSIBLE SPACE AROUND HOMES, MAKE HOMES MORE FIRE RESISTANT, AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO HOMEOWNERS; FIRE MITIGATION STAFFING; AND OTHER PROJECTS TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS THE INCREASING RISK OF CLIMATE-DRIVEN WILDFIRES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-050?

YES / FOR. Wildfire mitigation is becoming increasingly important in Boulder and Colorado as the climate heats up and dries. We can be assured of more catastrophic fires as a result.

That being said, I’m incredibly disappointed with the regressive sales tax that the Boulder County Commissioners have presented for this critical measure. Reading the ballot language, it is apparent that the measure is of huge benefit to home and property owners in Boulder County. Among other things, the measure will “create defensible space around homes, make homes more fire resistant, and provide technical assistance and financial assistance to homeowners.”

It’s clear to me that this measure should have been a property tax, as its primary function is to protect property — a great source of inequality in the Boulder area. The poorest of us should not have to pay an unequal share to protect the private property of our wealthier residents.

Additional Reading

1A: Countywide Wildfire Mitigation Sales and Use Tax and Revenue Change – Boulder Beat

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-050 Wildfire mitigation tax proposal – Boulder County

Opinion: Yes on 1A: Fire risk is increasing — funding and prevention should, too – Boulder Beat

Editorial: Wildfire mitigation among necessary taxes; ‘yes’ on 1A, 1B and 1C – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Claire Levy, Matt Jones and Marta Loachamin: County measures provide wildfire protections, other services – Daily Camera

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1B – YES / FOR

EMERGENCY SERVICES SALES AND USE TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE

SHALL BOULDER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $11 MILLION ANNUALLY (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE IN 2023) BY IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL 0.10% COUNTY-WIDE SALES AND USE TAX, DECLINING TO 0.05% AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2027, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING EMERGENCY SERVICES IN BOULDER COUNTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: CAPITAL, INCLUDING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONAL COSTS OF SEARCH AND RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR THE NEEDS OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN MOUNTAINOUS AND RURAL AREAS; AMBULANCE SERVICES IN AREAS NOT COVERED BY MUNICIPAL OR FIRE DISTRICT AMBULANCE SERVICES; WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING STAFFING; AND TRAIL AND TRAILHEAD SAFETY SERVICES; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX, REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-052?

YES / FOR. Emergency services are one area of living in the Boulder area where it makes sense to have dedicated funding. Organizations like Rocky Mountain Rescue are great assets to our community — keeping people safe and allowing people to recreate with assurance that help will be there if needed.

Unlike Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A, the Emergency Services tax proposed as a sales tax makes sense. Recreation in Boulder County is not just for people who live here, but people who visit, too.

When I was on the City of Boulder’s Landmarks Board several years ago, we were looking at some data on who visits Chautauqua in Boulder. The study said that roughly a third of people visiting lived in the city, another third in the county, and another third outside of Boulder County. I think a similar ratio may apply to people recreating in Boulder County more generally. A sales tax would help capture revenue from these various demographics.

Additional Reading

1B: Emergency Services Sales and Use Tax and Revenue Change – Boulder Beat

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-052 – Reso 22-052 Emergency Services tax proposal – Boulder County

Opinion: Yes on 1B: Tax will provide critical funding for life-saving services – Boulder Beat

Editorial: Wildfire mitigation among necessary taxes; ‘yes’ on 1A, 1B and 1C – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Claire Levy, Matt Jones and Marta Loachamin: County measures provide wildfire protections, other services – Daily Camera

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1C – YES / FOR

TRANSPORTATION SALES AND USE TAX EXTENSION AND REVENUE CHANGE

WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY’S EXISTING 0.10% SALES AND USE TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BE EXTENDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, COMMUTER AND RECREATIONAL BIKE PATHS AND TRAILS, TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT, TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT, AND COMMUNITY MOBILITY PROGRAMS; AND SHALL THE REVENUES AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2022-048?

YES / FOR. Boulder County Ballot Issue 1C extends an existing transportation tax in Boulder. While this is also a critical measure, I’m saddened that the Boulder County Commissioners chose the most timid, car-centric option rather than a higher tax that would fund more bike, pedestrian, and transit priorities.

Earlier this summer, Boulder County transportation staff presented the commissioners with various options for funding levels and spending priorities:

I acknowledge that there are a number of taxes on the ballot this year, and passage of an extension to the existing, expiring transportation tax is not guaranteed. But with our county’s significant transportation needs, it feels like our current funding level is simply inadequate for our needs and decarbonization priorities.

The commissioners played it safe, even when the highest taxing option had a polled approval of 58%, even with considerable numbers of people strongly opposed.

Additional Reading

1C: Transportation Sales and Use Tax Extension and Revenue Change – Boulder Beat

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-048 Transportation tax extension proposal – Boulder County

Boulder County Transportation Sales Tax Open House, June 14, 2022 – YouTube, Boulder County

Opinion: Yes on 1C: Boulder County transportation tax is crucial for fighting climate change – Boulder Beat

Editorial: Wildfire mitigation among necessary taxes; ‘yes’ on 1A, 1B and 1C – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Claire Levy, Matt Jones and Marta Loachamin: County measures provide wildfire protections, other services – Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2A / 2B – YES / FOR

CLIMATE TAX (TABOR)

SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $6.5 MILLION (FIRST, FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE) ANNUALLY AND INCREASING ANNUALLY BY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX BY IMPOSING A CLIMATE TAX ON THE DELIVERY OF ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE 8542; AND SHALL THE EXISTING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN EXCISE TAX SET TO EXPIRE MARCH 31, 2023 AND THE UTILITY OCCUPATION TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2025 BE REPEALED; AND SHALL THE CLIMATE TAX BEGIN JANUARY 1, 2023, AND EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2040; WITH THE REVENUE FROM THE CLIMATE TAX AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON TO BE USED TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND CLIMATE FOCUSED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, FINANCE CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS AND STABILIZE FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES TO MEET THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ITEMS SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES TO REDUCE ENERGY USE; ACCELERATE BUILDING WEATHERIZATION AND ELECTRIFICATION; LOCAL RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION AND STORAGE; MICROGRIDS AND DISTRICT SYSTEMS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE; EQUITABLE INVESTMENTS IN HIGH PERFORMING, HEALTHY BUILDINGS; SERVICES TO SUPPORT ZERO EMISSIONS; MOBILITY OPTIONS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON SOLUTIONS FOR CURRENTLY UNDERSERVED SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY; ZERO-WASTE EFFORTS INCLUDING REUSE, REPAIR AND RECYCLING; NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE ECOSYSTEMS, IMPROVE AIR QUALITY AND BUFFER EXTREME HEAT EVENTS; INCENTIVES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CLIMATE AND RESILIENCE ACTIONS; WILDFIRE RESILIENCE STRATEGIES SUCH AS WILDFIRE HOME RISK ASSESSMENTS, WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION; OUTREACH AND EDUCATION; RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES FOR THE ACCELERATION OF UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY LINES; FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME UTILITY CUSTOMERS; MATCHING FUNDS OR OTHER LEVERAGE TO ACCESS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES AND COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS TO ACCELERATE MEETING THE CITY’S CLIMATE GOALS?

YES / FOR THE MEASURE. (2A and 2B). The City of Boulder has implemented several dedicated climate taxes over recent decades: the Climate Action Plan Excise Tax and the Utility Occupation Tax. Both taxes are on energy usage, functioning as demand-based carbon taxes. The Climate Action tax was traditionally the city’s fund for climate-related action, yielding about $1.7 million per year. The Utility Occupation Tax was recently repurposed from its original intent — to support the city’s municipal energy project — which officially ended in 2020.

2A will implement the combined taxes and will generate about $6.5 million for local climate-related services, financing, and projects to help meet the city’s climate goals.

The overall structure of the combined taxes will be similar to the previous taxes, with a small increase in the overall rate, and that “the city is restructuring the rates so that businesses pay more and homeowners pay less.”

2B will implement municipal bonds (an additional cost to allow capital projects to start implementing faster).

You can read more from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: Ballot issues 2A, 2B: Climate Tax + Bonds

Additional Reading

Ordinance 8542 – CLIMATE TAX (TABOR) – City of Boulder

Opinion: Yes on 2A, 2B: Governments (and Boulder) should take the lead on climate change – Boulder Beat

Opinion: No on 2A, 2B: Climate tax funds employee paychecks — not carbon reduction – Boulder Beat

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C – YES / FOR

Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created

If the voters approve the initiative to create a library district that is on the ballot of Boulder County at the November 8, 2022 election, shall Sections 65, 102 and 130 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended and Sections 69, 132, 133, and 134 be repealed from the Boulder Home Rule Charter and any remaining funds in the Library Fund used all as set forth in Ordinance 8539?

Yes / For the Measure. The City of Boulder currently has a .333 mills property tax that offers a small part of the current funding for our library system, totaling $1.4 million of the total $11.1 million in the 2023 budget. If Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C passes, which will establish a library district for the Boulder area funded by dedicated property taxes, then the current dedicated funding for the library can be repealed, allowing the city to repurpose or refund the tax.

Regardless for your support of creating a library district, ballot question 2C makes sense if 6C passes. What will the city ultimately do with the existing revenues if the measure passes? City council has yet to determine a plan, but you can read some of the ideas proposed from staff in the September 22nd 2022 Boulder City Council meeting.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: Ballot Question 2C – Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created

Additional Reading

Boulder Ballot Issue 2C: Repeal Library Commission and tax – Daily Camera

Ordinance 8539 – Repeal of Library Commission and Tax if Library District Created – City of Boulder

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D – YES / FOR

Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues

Shall Sections 5 and 9 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to allow candidates to run for only one office at an election, allow a council member whose term does not end at the election to run for mayor without resigning their seat unless they win the office of mayor, fill vacancies for the remainder of the vacated term, and change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials as provided in Ordinance 8540?

Yes / For the Measure. Boulder voters passed a measure in 2020 to directly elect our mayor, starting in 2023. The change has a few implications for city council elections as well. I think the changes listed below all make sense and should be passed by voters.

A few details to discuss:

1. “allow candidates to run for only one office at an election.” The reason for this provision is to reduce complexity and confusion in having a candidate run for both mayor and city council at the same time. Also, given our campaign finance systems and 1-to-1 public matching dollars for campaigns would also get more complicated with a single candidate running for multiple offices.
2. “allow a council member whose term does not end at the election to run for mayor without resigning their seat unless they win the office of mayor.” Boulder’s mayor will only have a term of two years. I think that these elections will favor candidates who are well-positioned, and will likely have higher barriers to entry compared to running for city council. Many of the likely candidates for mayor will already have a seat on city council and are already well-positioned. The proposed change would allow candidates to run for mayor, and if the candidate lost the mayor’s election, would retain their seat on city council.
3. “fill vacancies for the remainder of the vacated term.” Under Boulder’s charter, vacancies on city council can only be filled during an election, and not by a vacancy committee, which is more common for state offices. Boulder’s charter states that during an election, the number of council members elected will need to match the total number of vacancies on the council at the election. For instance, if there are four terms up for election, and ten candidates run for council, then the top four of those candidates will receive a term in office. In the case that an existing council member runs for mayor and wins, that would create an additional vacancy on council (five total), which would be assigned to the candidate with the next-highest vote total.
4. “change the swearing-in date of newly elected officials.” The swearing-in date of new officials is currently in November. However, in close elections which take longer to count votes and certify, it’s not uncommon for races to be too close to call. Moving the swearing-in date back a few weeks to December would solve this issue.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: Ballot Question 2D – Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues

Additional Reading

Ordinance 8540 – Charter Clarification of Candidate Issues – City of Boulder

Opinion: Yes on 2D: Changes allow flexibility, retain essential experience – Boulder Beat

Opinion: No on 2D: Proposed limits are bad for candidates and voters – Boulder Beat

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2E – YES / FOR

Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years

Shall Sections 5, 14, and 22 of the Boulder Home Rule Charter be amended to change the regular municipal election date to even numbered years on the same date as the state general election beginning with the November 2026 election date, and to implement the transition, reduce the term of the council members elected in 2023 and 2025 to three years and increase the term of the mayor elected in 2023 to three years, all as more specifically provided in Ordinance 8546?

Yes / For the Measure. Full disclosure: I’m a co-lead on the People for Voter Turnout campaign to pass Boulder Ballot Question 2E. As a former Boulder City Council candidate in 2017 and organizer on many local campaigns, increasing turnout and representation in our city elections is incredibly important to me.

Boulder’s local elections are currently held in off-years, when many fewer people vote than in even years. We have lots of evidence that off-year elections are not only correlated with low voter turnout, but the main cause of low turnout. From the People for Voter Turnout Research Page:

So what happens when voter turnout is low, and why is it a problem? City councils make lots of important decisions affecting our quality of life, including those around housing, services, and policies for our city. When our elections are not representative in terms of age, race, income, housing status, and other factors, our city leaders do not reflect the breadth of people in our community.

Measure 2E would move Boulder’s local elections to even years when nearly double the people are voting. A number of cities across the United States have moved to on-cycle elections and shown dramatic increases in people participating in their local democracy.

Measure 2E was put on the ballot by Boulder City Council after prioritizing the change in January of 2022. I would love your support in making this change here in Boulder.

But not everyone in Boulder thinks the move would be helpful. I want to highlight some comments from local elected officials who openly dismissed the intelligence of voters in Boulder:

Boulder City Councilman Bob Yates, in his July Newsletter: “Maybe the motive here really is to get more people to vote in city council elections, under the belief that quantity is better than quality. Maybe the proponents sincerely believe that voters who currently opt out of odd-year city council elections will, once presented with a council race in even years, become informed about local issues and make good choices.” 

Boulder County Commissioner Claire Levy, on October 18th: “Most people I talk to can’t distinguish one candidate from another and dislike the rancorous tone of the outside groups that endorse candidates. It is very difficult to truly understand the differences among the candidates without attending debates and talking to them. Students are here temporarily and don’t see themselves as being affected by what city council does.”

I find these arguments truly gross, and dismissive of the diversity of people and needs in our community. More people need a voice in our local government, not fewer.

So are there any real arguments to oppose the move, other than keeping Boulder elections our little secret? I’ll address the best ones.

Will even-year elections drown out local issues and candidates?

No. In fact, they will elevate issues, as the elections will happen when nearly 90% of Boulder is voting. Candidates will need to make an effort to reach out to a broader set of people in the community and engage people with issues. Here’s a quote from my friend Adrian Fine:

“Palo Alto moved to even-year elections in 2012. When I ran for City Council in 2016, there was no question that an even year meant more people were listening and engaging on local issues.”

-Former Mayor of Palo Alto and current Boulder resident

Will school board elections be ‘orphaned’ if we move city elections?

No. I’ll reference the People for Voter Turnout FAQ:

Boulder’s school board elections occur in off-years like our city council elections currently do, causing them to have very low turnout of around 30%. Like cities, school boards need the autonomy to move their elections to even years to boost turnout and representation. We support and are working to change state law to allow for school board elections to be held in even years.

In the meantime, will turnout drop in school board elections if city council elections move to even years? We have lots of evidence that says no:

1. Only about ⅔’s of people in Boulder who vote in off-years vote in school board elections. These are very consistent voters that vote every year and will continue to vote every year.

Here is some data from the 2021 school board elections in precincts in the City of Boulder to show just how consistent off-year voters are. The table below correlates votes for candidates and undervotes (i.e. vote for none) with voters’ history.

8×8 voters, those who have voted eight times in the past eight elections, are much more likely to vote for school board candidates rather than undervote. On the less-likely voter side, voters who hadn’t voted in an off-year election were much more likely to not vote in school board elections. Even if turnout dropped slightly in future off-years, it will be minor, because the consistent voters have and will continue voting in school board elections.

2. Superior, Colorado — just outside of Boulder and in Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) — holds its municipal city council elections in even years. In 2021, Superior showed virtually identical turnout in school board elections (31%) compared to Boulder (32%).

Here is more in depth data in a comparison between Boulder and Superior using data from Boulder County Clerk. Superior has even higher voter turnout in even years, a somewhat larger drop in off-years, yet rates of voting in school board elections are roughly the same.

Passing measure 2E will be a great benefit to Boulder and help support school boards to work toward increasing turnout in their elections.

Why is turnout lower in off years? Why aren’t people voting in off-cycle elections?

When I first wanted to understand the reason to move local elections to even years, I found a really incredible book. The book is called “Timing and Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor Organized Groups” by Sarah F. Anzia, Associate Professor of Public Policy & Political Science at UC Berkeley.

Dr. Anzia writes, “moving local elections from off-cycle to the same day as presidential elections is three times more effective at increasing turnout than the most effective mode of mobilization—face-to-face canvassing.” As someone who has knocked thousands of doors in local elections over the years, I was really surprised to hear how important on-cycle elections are for turnout.

I’ll reference the People for Voter Turnout FAQ again:

There are lots of reasons as to why voters don’t turn out as much for odd-year elections.

The majority of people typically think of “Election Day” as the first Tuesday in November of even-numbered years. In off-years, when there are no statewide elections, many people don’t even realize an election is occurring. 

Off-years do not have the same level of support or interest from groups and organizations that try to get out the vote, which reduces turnout.

Advocacy groups and organizations do not put in the same level of time, money, or resources into getting out the vote in off-years, which reduces turnout. 

Additionally, off-cycle elections are more likely to reduce turnout for lower-income people and renters, who are more likely to move year to year. While Colorado is an all-mail ballot state, a person that moves in August and does not update their voter registration will not receive their ballot by mail. This adds a significant barrier to voting and that effect is multiplied with the reduced awareness of off-cycle elections.

I believe voting Yes on measure 2E will ensure that more people have a say in our local government and that we elect representatives who will and must govern for the broader community.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: 2E: Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years

Additional Reading

Ordinance 8546 – Change Regular Municipal Election to Even Years – City of Boulder

Episode 27 Jill Adler Grano, People for Voter Turnout – Sharing Boulder Podcast

Editorial: Increasing turnout must be our priority, ‘yes’ on 2E – Daily Camera

Opinion: Yes on 2E: To broaden democracy, broaden the vote – Boulder Beat

Opinion: No on 2E: Keep the focus on local issues – Boulder Beat

Guest opinion: Jill Adler Grano and Matt Benjamin: Robust election turnout is fundamental to democracy – Daily Camera

Guest opinion: Brian Keegan: Odd election years are temporal gerrymandering – Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2F – NO / AGAINST

Repeal of Ordinance 8483, Regarding the Annexation of CU South

Should Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?

No / Against the measure. Perhaps the most incredible part of Ballot Question 2F is that Boulder voters had to consider the same issue last year with Question 302, which tried to stop the annexation of CU South. So what has changed in a year? Not much. Will the result be the same? I can’t wait to find out!

I’ll leverage the intro from last year’s guide:

A few things have been true for many years: South Boulder Creek is prone to significant flooding risk in East Boulder, and the University of Colorado owns a parcel in southeast Boulder dubbed “CU South,” bearing a sign that says “To serve the needs of future students.”

Question 302 is about providing critically needed flood protection to 2,300+ Boulder residents and building the housing that CU and our city critically needs. Read “CU South annexation: A primer” from Shay Castle to get the full backstory.

This year we have another great read from Boulder Reporting Lab that I highly encourage to read for fun and intrigue: Decades of ‘what-ifs’: The history of CU South leaves many wondering what could have been.

So where does this leave us as voters evaluating how to vote on the measure?

Voting ‘No / Against’ will mean:

The current annexation plan, including flood mitigation, university housing, some university facilities, and preserving a large portion of the site as open space, will continue as outlined in the annexation agreement. I highly endorse voting no.

Voting ‘Yes / For’ will mean:

The City of Boulder and University of Colorado annexation agreement will be repealed. That means that current plans for the above agreement will stop. At that point, it will be incumbent on the city to renegotiate an agreement with the university.

The risks of a Yes vote are severe. We must accept that it was the City of Boulder that initiated the agreement in order to protect our own residents from dangerous flooding. The university has no obligation to concede to further demands to meet the city’s goal.

While some think that the parcel of land should be purchased and converted entirely to open space, that is not a realistic nor ideal use for much of the land, as witnessed in 1981 when “Boulder’s then open space director, the late Jim Crain, recommended Boulder not buy the Deepe farm to add to the open space accumulating around town,” via the Boulder Reporting Lab article.

The agreement as it stands will benefit both the university and our city. Please vote No to allow no more delay.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: 2F – Repeal of Ordinance 8483, regarding the annexation of CU South

Additional Reading

Ordinance 8534 – Repeal of Ordinance 8483, Regarding the Annexation of CU South – City of Boulder

Ordinance 8483- Annexation of CU South – City of Boulder

CU South Annexation Agreement (2021) – City of Boulder

Elections 2022: Ballot Measure 2F to Repeal Annexation of CU South – KGNU

Editorial: Flood protection must prevail, “no” on question 2F – Daily Camera

Opinion: No on 2F: Boulder needs flood protection, not endless negotiations – Boulder Beat

Opinion: Yes on 2F: Facts, science and a win-win – Boulder Beat

Boulder Valley School District RE-2 Ballot Issue 5A – YES / FOR

SHALL BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 DEBT BE INCREASED BY $350 MILLION, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF NOT TO EXCEED $714 MILLION, AND SHALL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED NOT MORE THAN $32 MILLION ANNUALLY, BY THE ISSUANCE AND PAYMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ALL FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT’S FACILITIES CRITICAL NEEDS PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND WILL BE MONITORED BY A COMMUNITY BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

– INVESTING IN DISTRICT SCHOOLS, SITES, AND FACILITIES BY REPAIRING, REPLACING, AND/OR UPGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING SYSTEMS AND FINISHES, AND REMOVING ASBESTOS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING URGENT FACILITY DEFICIENCIES, IMPROVING THE LEARNING AND WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL STUDENTS AND STAFF, EXPANDING ADA ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENDING THE SERVICE LIFE OF BUILDINGS, IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND CREATING SAFER LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS;

– ADDRESSING EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION (CTE) BY RENOVATING LEARNING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT INDUSTRY-INSPIRED ENVIRONMENTS, INCLUDING LAB-LIKE CLASSROOMS AT SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND MODERNIZING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AT THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION CENTER;

– REPLACING THE 70-YEAR-OLD NEW VISTA HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING WHICH HAS REACHED THE END OF ITS SERVICE LIFE, WITH A MODERN, ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING;

– CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS IN ERIE, COLORADO TO ACCOMMODATE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND RELIEVE OVERCROWDING AT OTHER DISTRICT SCHOOLS;

WITH SUCH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO BE SOLD, BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM OF NOT MORE THAN THREE PERCENT, AND BE ISSUED AT SUCH TIME, AT SUCH PRICE (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH TERMS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS BALLOT ISSUE, AS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MAY DETERMINE, AND SHALL THE MILL BE IMPOSED IN ANY YEAR AT A MILL LEVY SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT OR ANY REFUNDING DEBT, OR TO CREATE A RESERVE FOR SUCH PAYMENT, PROVIDED THAT ANY REVENUE PRODUCED BY SUCH LEVY SHALL NOT EXCEED $32 MILLION ANNUALLY?

YES / FOR. The Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) is one of the state’s top school districts. From a facilities and enrollment perspective, the district has some particular challenges with the aging of schools in the Boulder portion of the district and the demand for new schools in eastern Boulder County. The proposed 2022 bond tries to address both while also expanding career and technical education offerings.

Here’s an article from 2021 referencing the findings from a BVSD working group:

“The school’s 68-year-old building isn’t designed for high school students, doesn’t have needed flexible education spaces or adequate performance space, and has multiple structural issues, district officials said. Formerly Baseline Middle School, the building was occupied by New Vista in 2004.”

Most of the population growth, and particularly the growth of young families in BVSD is outside of Boulder. The new bond would fund another elementary school in Erie:

“BVSD is experiencing enrollment growth in the northeastern area of the district. Meadowlark School is a PK-8 school that opened in 2017, and is the district’s only school in Erie. The school is already at capacity at the elementary level and is expected to be at 150% of the building’s capacity within 5 years.”

The other bulk of the funding in the bond will be used for programs that better help prepare kids for careers in data science, engineering, and software. “Today the highest sought jobs are in artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, cybersecurity and digital transformation.” BVSD is a leader in Colorado and passing the bond will allow the district to continue its excellence in education.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: Ballot Issue 5A: Boulder Valley School District RE-2 bonds

Additional Reading

Boulder Valley School District Issue 5A: Capital improvement bond issue – Daily Camera

BVSD school board hears update on bond issue ballot measure – Daily Camera

Opinion: Yes on 5A: Investing in our schools is investing in our children and our communities – Boulder Beat

Opinion: Unanswered questions surround BVSD’s bond measure – Boulder Beat

Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C – YES / FOR

LIBRARY DISTRICT FORMATION AND MILL LEVY TAX AND REVENUE CHANGE

SHALL THE BOULDER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $18,780,000 ANNUALLY FOR COLLECTION BEGINNING IN 2023, AND BY SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY IMPOSED AT A RATE OF 3.5 MILLS TO PROVIDE FACILITIES AND SERVICES WHICH MAY INCLUDE:

– RESTORED AND IMPROVED LITERACY PROGRAMS, INCLUDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH SCHOOLS TO REACH UNDERSERVED STUDENTS AND STUDENTS WHO FELL BEHIND DURING THE PANDEMIC;

– ADDITIONAL FREE AND SAFE PUBLIC SPACES FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS AND PROGRAMS;

– UPDATED AND IMPROVED COLLECTIONS OF BOOKS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING BILINGUAL MATERIALS AND DOWNLOADING OF E-BOOKS, MOVIES, AND MUSIC;

– EXTENDED HOURS AT ALL EXISTING LIBRARIES AND A NEW BRANCH LIBRARY IN GUNBARREL;

– EXPANDED ACCESS TO STEAM PROGRAMS, MAKERSPACES, AND FREE INTERNET FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AND SENIORS;

– IMPROVED MAINTENANCE, CLEANLINESS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY AT ALL LIBRARY FACILITIES;

AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE ENTITLED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND THOSE REVENUES IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER TAXES, FEES OR OTHER REVENUES OF THE DISTRICT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, OR WITHOUT REGARD TO THE 5.5% PROPERTY TAX REVENUE LIMITATION OF SECTION 29-1-301, C.R.S., OR ANY OTHER LAW, AND SHALL THE DISTRICT BE FORMED?

YES / FOR. Measure 6C would establish a library district and a permanent, stable funding mechanism for Boulder and the surrounding county. We should vote yes to preserve and expand this important community resource.

I’m encouraged to see broad support for libraries in Boulder from a 2022 poll. This support is in addition to multiple other polls in recent years establishing that voters will support a measure to permanently fund our library system. While some on the city council have questioned whether a library district is the right form of funding and governance, the reality is that library districts are stable and well-used in 57 communities across Colorado and are governed by state law.

I wanted to share a personal story about why Boulder’s libraries are important to me and worth supporting. In 2015 I spent days at Boulder’s Carnegie Library researching the history of Boulder’s discriminatory housing laws. I used my findings extensively for a talk at Ignite Boulder 26, “A solution to occupancy limits in Boulder.”

In 2020 on the Bedrooms Are For People campaign, I again needed to use library services to finally find the origin and full history of these laws. But due to library funding cuts that have not been restored, I could only sign up for a single two-hour session per month. These library services are still not accessible to this day, and I haven’t been able to document the history.

What struck me about the library conversation is simply how long Boulder has let our library system suffer. Joni Teter, a member of the Boulder Library Champions who are working to pass 6C, co-wrote in the Daily Camera: “The best way to support public libraries? Fund them.”

Joni kindly sent me some of her records on Boulder’s history in library funding. In a piece by the late Boulder Library Commissioner Alex Warner, he says: “Once again the Boulder Public Library faces a crisis. Should such an important center for learning be closed two days a week as expected in 1988?”

Boulder’s has chosen to inadequately fund our libraries for decades. On November 4th 1987, a ballot issue that would have provided dedicated money to the library failed by about 10% points.

Again in 2022, we have a small but well-funded opposition to sustainable library funding in Boulder. Their opposition campaign is based on misinformation and a refusal to pay taxes to adequately fund our libraries. If you have more questions about how the district will work, I suggest reading the Frequently Asked Questions from the Boulder Library Champions.

It’s been far too long, Boulder. Vote YES on 6C and let’s fund our libraries.

You can read more details from Shay Castle at Boulder Beat News: 6C: Library district formation and mill levy tax

Additional Reading

Boulder Public Library District Ballot Issue 6C: Formation of district with mill levy – Daily Camera

Editorial: Libraries aren’t cheap, but they’re worth every penny, ‘yes’ on 6C – Daily Camera

Opinion: Yes on 6C: A vote for the library district is a vote for improving our community – Boulder Beat

Opinion: No on 6C: Library District is a tax increase without accountability – Boulder Beat

Thank you

Please share with anyone to whom this guide might be helpful.

A reminder that ballots must be mailed no later than Novembr 1st and ballots may be dropped off by 7pm on Election Day, Tuesday November 8th, 2022.

If you’re not a registered voter or you need to update your registration, you can register online now at Go Vote Colorado! (all you need is an updated Colorado driver’s license). If you register now, you will receive a ballot in the mail. Otherwise, you can register and vote through election day.

Questions, comments, or otherwise can be emailed to me Eric Budd at ericbudd@gmail.com or on Twitter @ericmbudd or on Mastodon at @ericmbudd@toot.bldrweb.org

Boulder City Council,

Having volunteered thousands of hours on Boulder campaigns in the past few years, I realize democracy is always hard. Making change is hard. Organizing is hard.

In a year where a pandemic threatens the health and safety of our community, we’re just asking for you to make democracy safe and possible.

I want to soundly reject the requests from PLAN Boulder County to not hold a public hearing on putting issues on the ballot.

“Please don’t burden us with this unnecessary distraction”—people facing high rents and unstable housing are not a distraction.

“None of these initiatives are dealing with an emergency”— likely evictions and their effects are an emergency.

“Let us postpone them until 2021 when we can have a full public discussion and voting by an informed public”—we’re asking for a public process and a public vote in 2020, when voter turnout will be nearing 90%.

A failure to take action to protect democracy is a failure to govern. We and many in Boulder are asking you to give democracy a chance when it is harder than usual this year.

Eric Budd
Bedrooms Are For People

We have three imperatives in 2020: to defeat the current president, to win a majority in the Senate, and to elect a leader with a bold vision for the future. I believe Elizabeth Warren stands out from the Democratic field as the best candidate to lead the party forward.

It’s not enough just to beat Donald Trump. We need a president who will take on the incredible challenges of our moment: climate change, inequality, health care, corporate power, and racial injustice. Elizabeth Warren’s drive to win, passion to teach, and smart plans make her the best candidate to unite us in this fight.

Climate change is the greatest issue of our time. We need aggressive action to transform our economy into one that’s sustainable for the planet and successful for our people. Elizabeth’s plans would move America to 100% renewable energy, invest in green jobs, and ensure environmental justice to undo the decades of damage we’ve inflicted on people of color and vulnerable populations.

Inequality is the story of my generation. Millennials and younger Americans face continued wage stagnation, crushing college debt, and fewer opportunities to own homes or start families. The bottom 90% of people’s share of wealth is decreasing while those with the most wealth see their share increasing. Elizabeth’s two cent per dollar tax on assets above $50 million will help reduce inequality while funding priorities to cancel student debt and provide free college to power the economy of the future.

Health care is a human right. For too long our health care system has privileged the healthy and well-off, while failing the sick and those without insurance. The economic costs of America’s system continue to rise while life expectancy has fallen. Elizabeth’s health care plan would transition to a single-payer model to control provider costs and cover all people.

Corporate power has increased for decades relative to workers and the people. Tax loopholes now allow trillion dollar corporations to pay $0 in taxes. Elizabeth’s plans would ensure that corporations pay their fare share, break up big tech monopolies to increase competition and mandate that large corporations work in the interest of all corporate stakeholders in addition to shareholders.

Racial justice must be a foundation of America’s future. The current administration’s racist speech, policies, and actions must end. An America of the future admits our racist past and present while embracing the power of a racially-diverse democracy. Elizabeth’s plans would fight white nationalist violence, end private prisons, value the work of women and entrepreneurs of color.

Voting in the Democratic Primary starts today. For voters in Colorado, ballots will mail out on February 10th ahead of the March 3rd election day. Please support Elizabeth Warren by voting for her in the primary, contributing to the campaign, telling your friends to vote, making calls or knocking doors.

Eric Budd
Boulder, Colorado

 

Colorado’s 2018 ballot includes a number of statewide offices and ballot measures that intend to address the state’s population and economic growth, education funding, and the balance of local land/safety with oil and gas interests.

Colorado’s statewide offices are largely controlled by Republicans, which could change significantly with a number of strong Democratic challengers. The state legislature currently is split (rare among the 50 US states) between a slight Democratic majority in the House and a slight Republican majority in the Senate.

While much of the election’s focus has been on national politics, 2018’s results will largely determine Colorado’s direction for the next four to eight years and adds more reason to make ensure you (and your friends!) vote.

Federal Offices

Representative to the 116th United States Congress – District 2  — Joe Neguse – Democratic

I’ve written about Joe Neguse: “Joe is incredibly bright, engaging, and will fight to protect the environment in Colorado. As a son of Eritrean immigrants, I could not be prouder to have Joe represent me at a time when immigrants should be valued, celebrated.” As Joe said at a recent campaign event, “I’m running for congress because that dream—the American dream—is under attack like it has never been in my lifetime.” I completely agree.

While some have attacked Joe as not being progressive enough for various reasons, I’ve seen in Joe’s work and experience that he will work hard to represent progressive values we have in Boulder and Colorado.

State Offices

Governor/Lieutenant Governor — Jared Polis / Dianne Primavera – Democratic
Secretary of State — Jena Griswold – Democratic
State Treasurer — Dave Young – Democratic
Attorney General — Phil Weiser – Democratic
State Board of Education Member – Congressional District 2 — Angelika Schroeder – Democratic
Regent of the University of Colorado – At Large — Lesley Smith – Democratic
State Representative – District 13 — K.C. Becker – Democratic

I’m voting for Democrats all the way down the ballot. I’ll give a few key points about some of the candidates and what’s at stake. I’m voting for Jared Polis for governor because he’s going to push our state in a progressive direction on clean energy and I hope to ensure our state grows in an equitable way with opportunity for all people. I think Jared’s business background is a positive overall, but would like him to have supported more progressive ballot measures this year (prop 73 for increasing education funding and prop 112 for safer setbacks from fracking). It’s clear that progressives in Colorado will need to keep pushing our elected leaders when they take moderate or conservative positions as many have this election cycle.

For other statewide offices, I’m voting Jena Griswold for secretary of state as we need to continue to push to remove barriers to participation for voters in Colorado, including a push for automatic voter registration. I’m supporting Phil Weiser for attorney general as someone who will push back on the overreach from the Trump administration. I’m supporting Lesley Smith for CU Regent because the board’s current conservative majority has been pushing its regressive ideology onto CU system, and as someone who considers Lesley a friend personally, I could not think of a person with better experience and progressive values to bring a thoughtful, practical direction to the university board.

Local Offices

District Attorney – 20th Judicial District — Michael Dougherty – Democratic
Regional Transportation District Director – District O — Lynn Guissinger
County Offices County Commissioner – District 3 — Matt Jones – Democratic
County Clerk and Recorder — Molly Fitzpatrick – Democratic
County Treasurer — Paul Weissmann – Democratic
County Assessor — Cynthia Braddock – Democratic
County Sheriff — Joseph K Pelle – Democratic
County Surveyor — Lee Stadele – Democratic
County Coroner — Emma R. Hall – Democratic

Most Boulder county/local offices for the 2018 election cycle have candidates who are unopposed. Largely the candidates won contested Democratic primaries and have no general election opponents, so I won’t go into depth on those races.

The county commissioner race offers several candidates (and had multiple Democratic candidates in the caucus/convention process, but not one candidate strong enough to force a primary). While I considered Cliff Willmeng, his most relevant experience in is limited to anti-fracking efforts, and I don’t believe he’ll be an effective county commissioner which is not only a political but managerial position.

I will vote for Matt Jones, largely due to his experience in the legislature and management, but I do not believe his platform offers any strong vision or track record to address Boulder County’s real transportation and affordable housing challenges. He offers no plan to reduce the cost of housing or pursue different housing options. Rather than focus on making transportation work for our region, his issues/positions page attacks the scapegoats of regional rail funding and public-private partnerships. My hope is that Matt listens to strategies to allow Boulder County to meet its infrastructure needs by making additional investments in transit and enabling cities to provide housing for our growing economy and population.

Judicial Retention

I’m voting to retain all of the judges on the ballot. Here’s a good tweet thread from Erin Overturf on reading more about judges where she mentions the Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluations web site:

You can read in the Denver Post for more information: How to handle questions about judges on your Colorado ballot

State Ballot Measures

Colorado Amendment W, Judge Retention Ballot Language Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment V, Reduced Age Qualification for General Assembly Members Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment X, Definition of Industrial Hemp Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment A, Removal of Exception to Slavery Prohibition for Criminals Amendment — YES
Colorado Amendment 73, Establish Income Tax Brackets and Raise Taxes for Education Initiative — YES
Colorado Amendment 74, Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property Value Due to State Regulation Initiative — NO
Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative — NO
Colorado Proposition 109, “Fix Our Damn Roads” Transportation Bond Initiative — NO
Colorado Proposition 110, “Let’s Go Colorado” Transportation Bond and Sales Tax Increase Initiative — YES
Colorado Proposition 111, Limits on Payday Loan Charges Initiative — YES
Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative — YES

Boulder County/City Ballot Measures

County Ballot Issue 1A – (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension) — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C – Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D – Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E – Charter Amendments for Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes — NO
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F – Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G – Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions — YES
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H – Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions — NO
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I – Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations — YES
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G — YES

State Ballot Measures (Analysis)

Colorado Amendment V, Reduced Age Qualification for General Assembly Members Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a reduction in the age qualification for a member of the general assembly from twenty-five years to twenty-one years?

I’m voting yes — the change would put Colorado in line with many other states in reducing the required age to 21 or lower.

Colorado Amendment W, Judge Retention Ballot Language Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change in the format of the election ballot for judicial retention elections?

I’m voting yes — the change would simplify the judges section of the ballot, while still maintaining clarity about which judges are at the state and local levels.

Colorado Amendment X, Definition of Industrial Hemp Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning changing the industrial hemp definition from a constitutional definition to a statutory definition?

I’m voting yes — I think the proposal from Colorado Senator Fenberg is forward-looking, even with some uncertainty due to federal policy. The current hemp definition is very similar to the federal definition, causing no change in the current term.

From Ballotpedia:

The Colorado Constitution defines industrial hemp as “the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis.” Federal law defines industrial hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”[4][5]

However, in June, the US Senate signaled easing in policy regarding marijuana/hemp, “U.S. Senate Votes To Legalize Hemp After Decades-Long Ban Under Marijuana Prohibition.” Given the current political environment and “six-in-ten Americans support marijuana legalization,” I think the positive-risk of adopting the amendment outweighs any downside risk of a federal tightening on hemp policy.

Additional reading:
Sudden opposition flares toward Amendment X, the hemp measure unanimously approved by the Colorado legislature — Colorado Sun

Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment — YES

Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text (Amendment Y, Amendment Z)
Ballotpedia link (Amendment Y, Amendment Z)

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change to the way that congressional districts are drawn, and, in connection therewith, taking the duty to draw congressional districts away from the state legislature and giving it to an independent commission, composed of twelve citizens who possess specified qualifications; prohibiting any one political party’s control of the commission by requiring that one-third of commissioners will not be affiliated with any political party, one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state’s largest political party, and one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state’s second largest political party; prohibiting certain persons, including professional lobbyists, federal campaign committee employees, and federal, state, and local elected officials, from serving on the commission; limiting judicial review of a map to a determination by the supreme court of whether the commission or its nonpartisan staff committed an abuse of discretion; requiring the commission to draw districts with a focus on communities of interest and political subdivisions, such as cities and counties, and then to maximize the number of competitive congressional seats to the extent possible; and prohibiting maps from being drawn to dilute the electoral influence of any racial or ethnic group or to protect any incumbent, any political candidate, or any political party?

I’m voting yes — the change should remove partisanship and racial bias from redistricting efforts, which has led to a number of high profile racial and political gerrymandering cases in recent years. You can read a more in-depth piece on the problems with gerrymandering by David Wasserman: The Gerrymandering Project—Hating Gerrymandering Is Easy. Fixing It Is Harder. I think the proposed change should move Colorado forward to a more fair electoral system.

Some critiques worth mentioning: the change would also somewhat “lock in” the current two-party system power structure, which could have negative partisan effects on third parties. Also, while the system would outline a way to make partisan members of the commission balanced, no consideration is given to ensure racial diversity in commission selection.

Additional reading:
Amendments Y and Z aim to take politics out of redistricting: Here’s how they’d work — Colorado Independent
Steve Fenberg and Peggy Leach: Amendments Y, Z put the interests of Colorado, not parties, first — Daily Camera

Colorado Amendment A, Removal of Exception to Slavery Prohibition for Criminals Amendment — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime and thereby prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude in all circumstances?

I’m voting yes — for the same reasons I voted for Amendment T in 2016 (which failed narrowly) — ”Colorado needs to go even further to eliminate prison labor entirely.”

Additional reading:
Colorado voters will get a second chance next month to abolish slavery — CNN

Colorado Amendment 73, Establish Income Tax Brackets and Raise Taxes for Education Initiative — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $1,600,000,000 ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING FUNDING RELATING TO PRESCHOOL THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE SINGLE RATE STATE INCOME TAX FOR REVENUE THAT IS DEDICATED TO THE FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS; INCREASING INCOME TAX RATES INCREMENTALLY FOR INDIVIDUALS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES USING FOUR TAX BRACKETS STARTING AT .37% FOR INCOME ABOVE $150,000 AND INCREASING TO 3.62% FOR INCOME ABOVE $500,000; INCREASING THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATE BY 1.37%; FOR PURPOSES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY TAXES, REDUCING THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT RATE OF 7.2% TO 7.0% AND THE CURRENT NONRESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT RATE OF 29%TO 24%; REQUIRING THE REVENUE FROM THE INCOME TAX INCREASES TO BE DEPOSITED IN A DEDICATED PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND AND ALLOWING THE REVENUE COLLECTED TO BE RETAINED AND SPENT AS VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES; REQUIRING THE LEGISLATURE TO ANNUALLY APPROPRIATE MONEY FROM THE FUND TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SUPPORT EARLY CHILDHOOD THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS THROUGHOUT THE STATE WITHOUT DECREASING GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS; DIRECTING THE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT, REGULARLY REVIEW, AND REVISE WHEN NECESSARY, A NEW PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE LAW THAT MEETS SPECIFIED CRITERIA; UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE HAS ENACTED A NEW PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE LAW, REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND TO BE ANNUALLY APPROPRIATED FOR SPECIFIED EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND PURPOSES; REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND TO BE USED TO SUPPORT ONLY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; REQUIRING GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION TO INCREASE BY INFLATION, UP TO 5%, ANNUALLY; AND REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO COMMISSION A STUDY OF THE USE OF THE MONEY IN THE FUND WITHIN FIVE YEARS?

I’m voting yes — Colorado education funding has consistently been near last in the nation, even during a boom time for the state (“Despite a booming economy, Colorado’s school funding lags well below national average”). Previous statewide education funding measures have failed, and with the state’s budget highly constrained by TABOR, directly asking voters for money is largely the only solution.

I support the measure for three reasons: 1. the state’s schools desperately need more funding and to decrease the “More than half of Colorado school districts adopt 4-day weeks to cut costs.” 2. Requiring the state legislature to fund equitable early childhood education 3. Establish a progress, dedicated funding mechanism for these goals to ensure that Colorado’s growth and well-off populations contribute to our education system.

I’m disappointed so many Democratic leaders have not supported the measure as the proposal lives up to democratic values we should uphold in Colorado.

Additional reading:
Amendment 73: Understanding the tax increase for education on your Colorado ballot — Chalkbeat

Colorado Amendment 74, Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property Value Due to State Regulation Initiative — NO

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring the government to award just compensation to owners of private property when a government law or regulation reduces the fair market value of the property?

I’m voting no — as should every person in Colorado. The toxic amendment pushed by the oil and gas industry. Not a single newspaper in the state has endorsed the measure, with members of all political parties talking about the problems with the constitutional change. Even the Colorado Spring Gazette’s conservative-leaning editorial board stated: “The Gazette’s editorial board erred on the side of property rights but erred nonetheless with our initial support for Amendment 74. Voters could easily make a similar mistake, so we urge readers to consider the full ramifications of this ballot measure.”

Additional reading:
Editorial: Amendment 74’s potential for damage is enormous
Guest Post: Amendment 74 – A Pandora’s box of property rights
EDITORIAL: We were wrong on Colorado Amendment 74

Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative — NO

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution providing that if any candidate in a primary or general election for state office directs more than one million dollars in support of his or her own election, then every candidate for that office in the same election may accept five times the amount of campaign contributions normally allowed?

I’m voting no — while seeming well-intentioned (which is a stretch considering the secretive funding behind this ballot measure), I believe the measure would lead to aggregate increases in spending on elections. In addition to millionaires, the constitutional amendment also states:

(c) A candidate facilitating or coordinating third party contributions amounting to more than one million dollars to any committee or organization for the purpose of influencing the candidate’s own election

Given various political action committees involved in campaigns that could top $1 million, I’m not convinced that the measure would have the effect of decreasing overall spending, but rather would increase limits of what individuals could spend. Rather than leveling the playing field, the amendment’s design would be a mechanism to funnel further money into politics.

Colorado Proposition 109, “Fix Our Damn Roads” Transportation Bond Initiative — NO

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

SHALL STATE DEBT BE INCREASED $3,500,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $5,200,000,000, WITHOUT RAISING TAXES OR FEES, BY A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, NOTE PROCEEDS SHALL BE RETAINED AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND USED EXCLUSIVELY TO FUND SPECIFIED ROAD AND BRIDGE EXPANSION, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE?

I’m voting no — not only is proposition 109 poor governance by increasing debt without a funding mechanism, the use of funding would be exclusive to building new roads and highways without any change or flexibility to current policy.

Increasing debt without paying for that debt means that at some later point, revenues must be raised or shifted from the existing budget (already constrained) to pay for these liabilities.

On transportation needs, as Colorado grows to become more urban, we need to fund transportation policy that provides an array of options for not only roads, but transit, biking, walking, with additional focus on city/regional infrastructure. The measure would not change the paradigm of transportation needed, but rather direct funds that don’t address Colorado’s long-term transportation problems.

Colorado Proposition 110, “Let’s Go Colorado” Transportation Bond and Sales Tax Increase Initiative — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $766,700,000 ANNUALLY FOR A TWENTY-YEAR PERIOD, AND STATE DEBT SHALL BE INCREASED $6,000,000,000 WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $9,400,000,000, TO PAY FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CHANGING THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TO: 1) INCREASE THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX RATE BY 0.62% BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2019; REQUIRING 45% OF THE NEW REVENUE TO FUND STATE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, MAINTENANCE, AND CONGESTION RELATED PROJECTS, 40% TO FUND MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, AND 15% TO FUND MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, INCLUDING BIKE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE; 2) AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES TO FUND PRIORITY STATE TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, INCLUDING MULTIMODAL CAPITAL PROJECTS; AND 3) PROVIDE THAT ALL REVENUE RESULTING FROM THE TAX RATE INCREASE AND PROCEEDS FROM ISSUANCE OF REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES ARE VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGES EXEMPT FROM ANY STATE OR LOCAL REVENUE, SPENDING, OR OTHER LIMITATIONS IN LAW?

I’m voting yes — proposition 110 has both a funding mechanism and an array of transportation uses that provide needed state funding and local government flexibility. The Let’s Go Colorado web site has a helpful list of projects that may be prioritized or funded if prop 110 passes. You can see bus rapid transit and multi-modal/bikeways are options in the Boulder and county area.

My critiques of the measure: the main disappointment I have is the funding mechanism, which is a largely regressive sales tax. I would have preferred a significant component as a user fee (i.e. increasing the gas tax) which would be more equitable and have a lesser impact on working class people. While other states have successfully increased the gas tax, polling in Colorado has dissuaded many from even trying for an increase.

Additional reading:
Editorial: Fix our roads with Proposition 110, not Proposition 109 — Daily Camera
Coloradoan editorial board endorsement: On transportation, yes to 110, not so fast on 109 — Coloradoan
Vote ‘no’ on Prop. 109 and ‘yes’ on Prop. 110 to fund transportation in Colorado — Vail Daily letter
Sue Prant: Proposition 110 will make biking better — Daily Camera
Guest Post: Why Proposition 110 is the only real option for Colorado — Colorado Independent
Proposition 110 Projects Map — CDOT

Colorado Proposition 111, Limits on Payday Loan Charges Initiative — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limitations on payday lenders, and, in connection therewith, reducing allowable charges on payday loans to an annual percentage rate of no more than thirty-six percent?

I’m voting yes — payday loans are predatory services extended to people who have few options for a loan. While the measure would still allow high interest loans, prop 111 is a reasonable reduce exploitation of people in need of short-term cash. While some have argued that the law would “crush” payday loan providers, based on other states enacting similar laws still have a significant number of payday lenders operating in their states. The tradeoff is a positive for Colorado and we should gladly take it.

Additional reading:
Proposition 111 in the 2018 Colorado election: What to know about limitations on payday loans — Denverite

Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative — YES

Colorado state legislative text
Ballotpedia link

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum distance requirement?

I’m voting yes — prop 112 is perhaps the most controversial measure on the 2018 ballot.  Per the Denver Post:

The initiative aims to increase the required distance of any newly drilled wells from homes, schools and water sources to 2,500 feet. The current setback is 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from densely occupied buildings, like hospitals and schools.

The most pressing questions: 1. Will the setbacks increase safety? 2. Will the change drastically affect the Colorado economy? 3. Who’s supporting the measure and how?

The Denver Post’s article “Proposition 112: Dissecting the science behind the oil and gas setbacks initiative” tries to gather evidence for increased regulation of oil and gas drilling. While larger studies have found limited health impacts, we’ve seen very limited regulation of oil and gas operations’ effects on air quality and groundwater. The initiative would provide a buffer from immediate effects of fracking as well as reducing new operations near homes and businesses more generally.

On the economic impact of prop 112, I want to highlight that the proposal language “applies to oil and gas development permitted on or after the effective date,“ which should temper the dire warnings about the law’s immediate economic impacts. Colorado Public Radio’s story suggests at least 58% of land in Colorado would be unavailable for fracking:

The Colorado School of Mines recently came to a different number taking into account subsurface access. Professor Peter Maniloff found that 58 percent of the subsurface would be inaccessible in Proposition 112 were to pass. His analysis differs from the state because he tried to consider how companies can drill horizontally for over a mile, going underneath homes and schools to access oil and gas.

While I think the oil and gas industry will have reduced revenues going into the future, the economic case alone is not strong enough to vote against the measure, particularly as Colorado needs to redirect and invest in a more clean and sustainable energy supply.

Lastly, prop 112 is a grassroots campaign measure largely driven by a volunteer base. Spending opposition has outspent the ‘yes’ campaign more than 40 to 1, largely from oil and gas interests and with question practices (“Noble Energy Pumps Unregulated Cash Into Fight Against 112”).

From Vox— Big Oil is using brute financial force to kill 2 state sustainability initiatives

Whatever the merits, it has Big Oil completely freaked out. Protect Colorado, the group leading the opposition, has raised $35.6 million so far, overwhelmingly from the oil and gas industry, companies like PDC Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, SRC Energy, and Noble Energy.

Additional reading:
Whose Colorado? Fracking debate pits families against ‘economic engine’ — CS Monitor
What Proposition 112 — the controversial bid to rein in Colorado oil and gas drilling — would mean for schools — Chalkbeat
How would Proposition 112 impact Colorado’s economy? Two sides with two different stories about well setbacks — Denver Post
Proposition 112: Dissecting the science behind the oil and gas setbacks initiative
Colorado Health Department finds little evidence of health harms from living near oil and gas sites
Ask the Indy: Analyzing seven big questions about Colorado’s ballot fight over oil-and-gas setbacks
Editorial: The case for expanded oil and gas setbacks and Proposition 112 — Daily Camera
Will Toor: Why I am voting for Proposition 112 — Daily Camera

County/City Ballot Measures (Analysis)

County Ballot Issue 1A – (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension) — YES

WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX, SHALL THE COUNTY EXTEND AN EXISTING 0.185% SALES AND USE TAX SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2019, FOR FIVE (5) YEARS TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2024, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING FACILITY AT THE BOULDER COUNTY JAIL AND PROVIDING EXPANDED ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING AND OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TO KEEP LOW-RISK OFFENDERS OUT OF EXPENSIVE JAIL BEDS AND ENABLE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR THE JAIL POPULATION; MODERNIZATION OF THE CURRENT JAIL BUILDING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT, RENOVATIONS AND REPURPOSING TO PROVIDE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO MEET THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH NEEDS OF INMATES; AND SHALL THE PROCEEDS AND THE EARNINGS ON THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION NO. 2018-76?

I’m voting yes — funding an alternative sentencing facility would reduce the currently overburdened jail and provide alternatives for those jailed/detained due to the camping ban or suffering from mental illness.

I have not read much discussion on the ballot measure in general online or in newspapers. My main concern is dedicating a large portion of existing sales tax to this purpose that was previously used for flood recovery.

Additional reading:
Boulder County Ballot issue 1A: Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C – Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

SHALL CITY OF BOULDER TAXES BE INCREASED $0 IN 2019 AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE GENERATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER THROUGH THE IMPOSITION OF AN OIL AND GAS POLLUTION TAX AT THE RATE OF UP TO $6.90 PER BARREL OF OIL AND UP TO $0.88 PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET OF NATURAL GAS FOR OIL OR GAS EXTRACTED WITHIN THE BOULDER CITY LIMITS COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2019, AND SHALL REVENUE FROM THE TAX BE USED TO FUND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION IN THE CITY OF BOULDER AND WITH THE REMAINDER USED BY THE GENERAL FUND AND SHALL ALL EARNINGS THEREON (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?

I’m voting yes — however, the law would have little to no effect on drilling in Boulder. Per Shay Castle at the Daily Camera, “the tax — up to $6.90 per barrel of oil 88 cents per thousand cubic feet of natural gas — would be paid by drillers, though none have expressed interest in drilling within city limits. The last well in Boulder was capped in the 1990s.” The measure is largely symbolic.

Additional reading:
Boulder advances oil, gas pollution tax with no public comment, little discussion

City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D – Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

WITHOUT RAISING TAXES MAY THE CITY KEEP ALL REVENUES FROM THE 2016 VOTER-APPROVED SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION EXCISE TAX, AND CONTINUE TO COLLECT THE TAX AT THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RATE, AND SPEND ALL REVENUES COLLECTED FOR THE HEALTH EQUITY-RELATED PURPOSES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, WITHOUT REFUNDING TO DISTRIBUTORS THE AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDED THE REVENUE ESTIMATES APPROVED BY VOTERS IN 2016?

I’m voting yes — I have previously supported the sugary drink tax and still do for the reasons I outlined two years ago. Even if you don’t support the tax, voting against the ballot measure would take taxpayer money collected in our city, earmarked for local non-profits supporting our food system, and return it to distributors of sugary drinks as profit — which would be a terrible outcome for our community. I strongly urge a yes vote.

Additional reading:
Editorial: Not a fan of sugary drink tax? Don’t take it out on Issue 2D. — Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E – Charter Amendments for Initiative, Referendum and Recall Processes — NO

Boulder ordinance language link

Shall Sections 29, 38A, 38B, 39, 40, 44, 48, 54, 56, and 177 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8272 to clarify the actions required to be taken if a candidate withdraws from a city council election; establish the number of signatures required for an initiative and referendum to be at least ten percent of the average number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections so as to return this number closer to the range that was in place prior to changes in federal law and registration procedures; establish the number of signatures required for a recall to be at least twenty percent of the average number of registered electors of the city who voted in the previous two municipal candidate elections; amend the process and establish a fixed schedule for filing, review and consideration of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions so that both petitioners and city staff will have clarity and certainty; set standards for the city clerk’s examination of petitions so that this examination is completed in a timely fashion and that the possibility of fraud is minimized; provide for input from the petition committee to the city council prior to setting the ballot title to help ensure accuracy of the title; and require that an ordinance passed by vote of the people may only be amended by two-thirds of the council members present, and only if the amendments are consistent with the basic intent of the ordinance or are necessary to come into compliance with state or federal law?

I’m voting no — while in general I think the changes are reasonable, the changes to the initiative and referendum process allow a very small percentage of citizens to put a measure on the ballot or to overturn a law passed by city council.

Per Richard Valenty’s write-up on 2E:

If 2E passes, proponents for initiative and referendum measures would need to gather valid signatures from at least 10 percent of an average of total voters during the previous two municipal elections, while the current Charter calls for 10 percent of city registered electors on the day the petition is filed. For example, the 2017 county election report showed 72, 574 active voters in the City of Boulder, so 10% of that would be about 7,257 signatures (current system). City voter turnout was 29,552 in 2015, and 31,765 in 2017, for an average of 30,658, so 10% would be 3,065 signatures (proposed system).

I have two relevant examples here of how the system could be abused: Earlier in 2018, “Funding Our Future abandons plans for Boulder ballot measure to raise taxes on marijuana” in which an organization with no presence in Boulder very quickly gathered signatures to put a measure on the ballot before completely dissolving under more scrutiny.

In 2007, people in central Boulder stopped a housing development by gathering over 9,000 signatures in opposition of a city council approval to allow a housing development at Washington Village on Broadway. If ballot measure 2E passed, a similar opposition could organize by collecting signatures from ~3,000 people, fewer than 3% of city residents.

Enabling small groups of people to control city decisions creates incentives for obstruction and destructive policy. I recommend voting no.

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E: Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Process — The Blue Line
Matthew Appelbaum: What to reject on this year’s ballot — Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F – Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

Shall Sections 39, 46, and 57 of the City Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8273 to require the city clerk, to the extent reasonably possible and so as to ensure authenticity, compare the signatures on a petition to signatures with the election records of the Boulder County Clerk or the Secretary of State?

I’m voting yes — the city would adopt a standard practice used by county and state-level petitions.

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F: Initiative Petition Signature Verification — The Blue Line

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G – Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

I’m voting yes — as the ordinance does not automatically legalize the use of electronic petitions, but does allow the city council to make laws to enable electronic petitions in the future. The city council can (and should) pursue exact implementation details of how the city should enable electronic petitions at a later date.

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G: Electronic and Online Petitions — The Blue Line

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H – Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions — NO

Boulder ordinance language link

Shall Section 130 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8271 to: allow council to set the number of any new advisory commission as five or seven when forming the commission; allow council to increase the size of the Housing Advisory Board from five to seven members; change the criteria for what constitutes a majority to accommodate boards of different sizes; and change the reference of “sex” to “gender identity?”

I’m voting no — even though the measure contains some needed changes. I completely support the change from ‘sex’ to ‘gender identity’ — but the language for other changes is needlessly constrictive and undemocratic in how/when board members are selected.

The Housing Advisory Board should be larger and more representative of the population our city, which the ballot language does not address. Per Shay Castle at The Daily Camera:

The initial board had only one renter — Masyn Moyer — and four homeowners, despite the fact that Boulder itself is 52 percent renters. Three of the five members were also associated with slow- or no-growth political groups: May and Adam Swetlik are members of PLAN Boulder County, and Judy Nogg served on the leadership group of Together4Boulder.

I agree completely with former Boulder Mayor Matt Appelbaum:

“Question 2H correctly allows council to create seven-member boards, but contains serious flaws. It reasonably ups the housing board to seven, but absurdly leaves the far more important, and deserving of additional viewpoints, transportation and open space boards at five. As written, 2H apparently requires that the two years in which two of seven board members are replaced will be consecutive, allowing a single council to appoint a majority. Make council try again.”

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H: Advisory Commissions — The Blue Line
New housing board pick checks the boxes for Boulder leaders — Daily Camera
Matthew Appelbaum: What to reject on this year’s ballot — Daily Camera

City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I – Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations — YES

Boulder ordinance language link

Shall Section 78 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance 8270 to change the time for the Planning Department to submit its recommendations for public improvements from sixty days to thirty days before the submission of the budget to be consistent with the city’s budgeting process?

I’m voting yes — the measure would allow the planning department to finish its reporting later in the budget cycle, and according the Mayor Zan Jones, would allow “the Planning Board… to review proposed capital improvement projects as part of their budget review process (rather than after the fact), thereby better aligning and improving the City’s overall budget process.”

Additional reading:
City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I: Planning Department Budget Recommendation — The Blue Line

Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G — YES

Ballotpedia link

SHALL URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $14.9 MILLION IN 2019 (RESULTING IN AN ANNUAL TAX INCREASE NOT TO EXCEED $1.97 IN 2019 FOR EACH $100,000 OF ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL VALUATION) AND BY SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER FROM A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED 1.0 MILLS TO PAY FOR DISTRICT WORK IN COORDINATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING:
1. MAINTAINING EARLY FLOOD WARNING GAUGES TO PROVIDE POTENTIAL EVACUATION WARNINGS,
2. PROVIDING TRAILS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND RECREATIONAL ACCESS TO RESIDENTS BY PRESERVING THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN FLOODPLAIN AREAS WHICH PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND
3. REMOVING DEBRIS, GARBAGE AND OBSTRUCTIONS FROM STREAMS, CREEKS AND RIVERS RESULTING IN REDUCED RISK TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS, PROTECTING PROPERTY, AND RESTORING NATURAL BEAUTY;
WITH THE DISTRICT’S ENTIRE MILL LEVY RATE SUBJECT TO STATUTORY CAPS AND TO ADJUSTMENT TO OFFSET REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND CHANGES TO THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL VALUATION USED TO DETERMINE ASSESSED VALUATION; AND SHALL ALL DISTRICT REVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITS PROVIDED BY LAW?

I’m voting yes — flood control and funding will continue to be important in climate change resiliency. I found the write-up from Mayor Zan Jones convincing on the topic:

The District’s property tax rate hasn’t been raised in 50 years, but the 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights (aka TABOR) resulted in the ratcheting-down of the flood-control district’s dedicated property tax rate from $1 per $1,000 of assessed value to 56 cents today. Under 7G, the District is asking for permission to restore its full taxing authority, as many other cities and counties have done. The impact on the average home would be about $13 annually. Each city and county receives back the same amount of funding as they contribute, and benefits from well-designed flood control infrastructure.

Additional reading:
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Ballot Issue 7G — Daily Camera

Below is my letter from 8/10/2018 announcing my resignation from the Boulder Landmarks Board. Note: My original letter left out city staff person “Holly Opansky” which has been added.

 

City Council and Staff,

I have been honored and privileged to serve on Boulder’s Landmarks Board for the past several years. I am writing to tender my resignation to the board, effective October 4th, 2018, which should allow enough time to select a replacement without affecting the work of the board.

On the board, I’ve been proud of our efforts to improve the demolition process, as well as the hard work of our group to elevate applicants’ projects and develop a mindset that celebrates historic preservation. I’m thankful for the opportunity to have learned from our board as well as the excellent people serving in historic preservation staff—James Hewat, Marcy Cameron, Debra Kalish, and Holly Opansky.

I want to specifically address the reason for my resignation—that the duties and responsibilities of Landmark’s Board members are in conflict with full-time work during the day. The Landmarks Board requires a sub-committee (the Landmarks Design Review Committee) to meet from 8:30AM to 12PM on Wednesday mornings every week. I have accepted a job starting at end of August and will not be able to fulfill this obligation.

The Landmarks Board has systemic barriers for young and working people to serve, as many have resigned in recent years, and should be examined to allow broader participation. I am concerned about Councilwoman Nagle’s comments yesterday that the new appointee to the Housing Advisory Board should have “extensive experience on government boards and/or bodies, knowledge of public policy development and government process.” I firmly believe boards and commissions must represent the diversity of people and backgrounds in the community as a whole, regardless of whether or not a board is newly-formed. Please consider appointing someone to the Landmarks Board who will give balance to the board and represent perspectives in our community that are not already represented.

Eric Budd